Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 223 (MP)

Kamla w/o Gopalji Rokde v. State of M. P.

2014-02-18

PRAKASH SHRIVASTAVA

body2014
JUDGMENT : Heard. 2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the impugned order Annexure P/1, which is the pension calculation sheet seeking to recover a sum ofRs.1,71,572/- from the petitioner. He has also challenged the order Annexure P/2 dated 16.2.2012 withdrawing the benefit of FR-22D and seeking to recover the amount ofRs.33,862/- allegedly paid in excess to the petitioner and Annexure P/3 dated 12.4.2012 withdrawing the benefit of 2ndKramonnati and seeking to recover a sum of Rs.1,37,710/- 3. The case of the petitioner is that she was initially appointed on the post of Assistant Teacher with effect from10.1.1973 and she was granted the first higher pay scale on completion of 12 years of service with effect from 1.1.1986 in the pay scale of Rs.1400-2640/- (Revised Rs.5000-8000).On 14.10.1993 the petitioner was promoted to the post of UDT on the same pay scale of Rs.5000-8000/- and was given the benefit of FR-22D. After completion of the 24years of service, the petitioner was granted the IInd Kramonnati with effect from 1.8.2003 and her pay was fixed to the pay scale of Rs.5500-9000/-. Thereafter the petitioner was promoted as Head Master and she was superannuated on 31.1.2012 and after the retirement of the petitioner, impugned orders have been passed seeking to recover the amount mentioned above from the petitioner on the ground that the benefit of FR-22D as well as IInd Kramonnati was wrongly granted to the petitioner. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the benefit of FR-22D as well as the IInd Kramonnati was granted to the petitioner in terms of the Circular as well as the judgment of this Court, therefore, the benefit has wrongly been withdrawn and after the retirement of the petitioner, the respondents are not justified in seeking to recover the amount from the petitioner. 5. Counsel for the State has opposed the writ petition and has submitted that since the benefit of FR-22D and IInd Kramonnati was wrongly granted to the petitioner, therefore, the impugned orders have been passed seeking to recover the amount which was paid in excess to the petitioner. 6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 7. 6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 7. So far as the recovery of Rs.33,862/- relating to the wrong grant of benefit under FR-22D is concerned, it is found that the promotion of the petitioner from the post of Assistant Teacher to UDT was on the same pay scale. The petitioner was earlier working as Assistant Teacher on therevised pay scale of Rs.5000-8000/- and she was promoted on the post of UDT on the same pay scale of Rs.5000-8000/-. The Division Bench of this Court in the matter of State of M.P. Vs. Dayaram Patidar by the order dated 4.10.2002 passed in W.P. No.1104/2001 has settled the said controversy by holding that the benefit of FR-22D isto be given on promotion from lower post to the higher postand not from one scale to another. Therefore, even if the petitioner was promoted on the same pay scale of UDT, she was entitled for the benefit of FR-22D in terms of the Division Bench judgment of this Court in the matter of Dayaram Patidar (supra). Therefore, the respondents are not justified in passing the impugned order Annexure P/2and withdrawing the said benefit. 8. So far as the withdrawal of benefit of the IInd Kramonnati is concerned, the petitioner was entitled for the IInd Kramonnati after completion of 24 years of regular service on satisfying the conditions mentioned in paragraph2([k) of the Circular dated 17.3.1999/19.4.1999. Since the petitioner had received the higher pay scale only once in the24 years of her regular service, therefore, on completion of24 years of service she had become entitled for the IInd Kramonnati in terms of the said Circular. It has also been pointed out by counsel for the petitioner that the said issue is concluded by the judgment of this Court in the matter of Mahesh Chandra Vs. State of M.P. and others by or derdated 5.4.2011 in W.P. No.13613/2010 as also the judgments in the matter of Smt. Rajni Vs. State of M.P. and others passed in W.P. No.2416/2011 decided on 14.3.2011and Prabhat Vs. State of M.P. and others passed in W.P.No.5941/2010 decided on 1.2.2011. 9. State of M.P. and others by or derdated 5.4.2011 in W.P. No.13613/2010 as also the judgments in the matter of Smt. Rajni Vs. State of M.P. and others passed in W.P. No.2416/2011 decided on 14.3.2011and Prabhat Vs. State of M.P. and others passed in W.P.No.5941/2010 decided on 1.2.2011. 9. In view of the above position in law, the respondents were not justified in withdrawing the benefit of IInd Kramonnati which was granted to the petitioner and passing impugned order Annexure P/3 directing recovery of a sum ofRs.1,37,710/- on the ground of wrongful extension of benefit of IInd Kramonnati. 10. The above analysis indicates that the respondents have committed an error in passing the impugned orders and directing recovery of a sum of Rs.1,71,572/- against the petitioner. Even otherwise after retirement of the petitioner, such a recovery could not have been directed which would cause serious prejudice to the petitioner. Such a recovery is not sustainable in view of the Division Bench judgment of this Court in the matter of State of M.P. and others Vs. Omprakash passed in W.A. No.168/2012 by order dated 9.11.2012. 11. In view of the above, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned orders Annexure P/2 and P/3 are set aside and consequently recovery order Annexure P/1 is also set aside. The respondents are directed to refix the pension of the petitioner in accordance with law and also to refund the amount, if any, recovered from the petitioner in pursuance to the impugned orders within a period of 6 months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. 12. The writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. C.C. as per rules.